On 2024-02-28 10:45, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>> That
>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>
>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where safety
>>> or corrosion is an issue.
>>
>> *ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
>
> While you being ill-informed on technical issues (ionizing radiation
> from cell phones comes to mind, but there are many more), when you
> wirelessly charge your phone in the car it takes more from your car's
> battery than wired would; in turn needs to be replaced by your utility.
> Switzerland at least has some hydro and nuclear (though not enough).
>
> If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
>

Dude...

The fastest charging rate for an iPhone is 27 Watts.

That is equivalent to a horsepower of 0.036hp.

The MagSafe maximum charging rate is 15W.

That's 0.02hp.

MagSafe charging is 75% efficent, so he maximum loss you could be
experiencing is 0.007hp.

Typical horsepower for cruising along the highway is 17-25hp, so let's
take the average as 21hp.

So...

Using a wireless charger instead of a USB cable can cost you a MAXIMUM
of 0.12% of the power you'd be using anyway.

If your car does 30mpg at highway speed and you drive 20,000 highway
miles a year...

....you'll use approximately 667 gallons of fuel for the year...

....which will rise to 667.5 gallons if you're wireless charging for
everyone one of those 20,000 miles.

If 1 BILLION cars charge wirelessly for 20,000 miles of highway driving,
yes: that will take an additional 466,666,667 gallons...

....which will produce 42,335,723 metric tonnes of CO2...

....out of some 40,000,000,000 tonnes...

....so one TENTH of one percent of all human emissions...

....and only assuming a completely unrealistic scenario.

So how about getting a LITTLE perspective, huh?

On 2024-02-28 06:16, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 08:53, Cameo wrote:
>> I don't believe in human-caused climate change in the first place. So
>> that's that.
>
> Ignorance becomes you.
>
> Belief = faith.
>
> Get the science - that removes belief and faith like bleach to a stain.
>
> Of course: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>

There's a real irony present there...

....can you see it?

On 2024-02-28 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>>> That
>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>
>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>>>> safety
>>>> or corrosion is an issue.
>>>
>>> *ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
>>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
>>
>> While you being ill-informed on technical issues
>
> *LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you understand
> nothing.

Nice how you snip things...

It remains and cannot be refuted: wireless charging produces more waste
heat. That energy is forever gone.

Wired: less loss, therefore more use out of the energy.

>
> Electricity in Switzerland is 98% renewable. With the exception of
> Norway no other industrialised country comes even close.
>
>> If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
>
> Chatterbox!
> The world does not need solar. The world needs non-volatile and reliable
> base band electricity which can be best produced CO2-free with nuclear
> power plants or hydro plants.

Nuclear is not carbon free, alas. All that concrete in the making
releases masses of CO2. Never mind the problems of nuclear waste.

Hydro is almost as bad in most cases and of course, in most cases, silt
up. (Why a major dam in Swizerland is being dredged. Indeed, the dam
is weak so an "additional" dam is being built immediately below it to
take off the strain. More CO2 emissions!).

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>>>>
>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>
>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>
>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>
>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a bunch
>> of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each time I got out
>> of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the car, plugged in the phone.
>>
>> Not very inconvenient.
>>
>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.  Just
>> enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the position
>> where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the phone).
>> This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug it.  This
>> makes it more convenient.
>>
>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>> that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>> does not need.
>>
>
> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>
> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly charged
> for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.

It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on uptake).

1B tends to make a lot out of a little. Then multiply by years, and so
on and so forth.

Then of course there is the source. Unlike your house current, a car's
engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the alternator.
(thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise it's far less).
Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".

Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
loss. Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".

Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it. The wireless side
heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local power
co.)).

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2/28/2024 8:47 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 7:22 AM, Cameo wrote:
>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>
> Seems like there are not a lot of choices that support both Android Auto
> and Apple CarPlay, and they aren't inexpensive, i.e.
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKMMS19S>. Not a lot of reviews on any of
> the dual-support units.
>
> It's really nice to just plop your phone onto a MagSafe charger/phone
> holder in the car and then connect wirelessly to your vehicle's head unit.
>
> OTOH, it's not that much trouble to plug in a USB-C cable to the phone
> when you need the full-functionality of Android Auto or Apple CarPlay,
> and if you're not using wireless charging you have to plug in a cable
> anyway.
>
> Most of the time I'm listening to music or audiobooks while driving,
> it's only on long trips where I care that much about displaying maps on
> the head unit's screen. The after-market head unit I have in my SUV
> supports wired Android Auto and wired Apple CarPlay and I haven't bought
> a wireless adapter yet.
>
I haven't decided yet if I get an adapter. The gizmo-loving me keeps
bugging me about getting one.

On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply that
>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet does
>>>> not need.
>>>
>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%. That
>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>
>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice of
>> a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the choice of
>> wired v. wireless charging.
>>
>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>
>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>
>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>
>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>
>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural gas,
>> coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>
>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use (we
>> export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use more
>> fossil fuel).
>>
>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>> safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>
>
> Do...
>
> ...the...
>
> ...math.

Sure - based on my own testing in 2021. Anker pad v. Apple 12W
charger+wire.

iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger and wire

iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better than
±1mm in X and Y). Data below.

THAT IS:

634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.

v.

785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
which would have made it worse).

So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest range
of about 20 - 75%.

So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:

151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.

or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.

Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:

28 GWh worth of gasoline ...

Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by
various sources. I'll use 75%:

=37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...

=2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);

1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted

=9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.

Scale as you like. But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
emissions per year is better than putting it out there.

Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.

Test data.
===============
2021-11-30 iPad 12W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Wired charge
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
13.9 20% 25% 4.16 minutes 3475
13.9 25% 31% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 31% 37% 5 minutes 4170
13.9 37% 43% 5 minutes 4170
12.2 43% 50% 5 minutes 3660
11.8 50% 56% 5 minutes 3540
12 56% 61% 5 minutes 3600
11.8 61% 67% 5 minutes 3540
6.5 67% 74% 10 minutes 3900
34225
===============

2021-12-03 iPad 12 W charger
iPhone 11 Pro Anker pad No case (bare metal to charger)
Power(W)Start End Dt Energy (Ws)
6.1 24% 28% 7.75 minutes 2836.5
6.1 28% 34% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 34% 41% 15 minutes 5490
6.1 41% 49% 15 minutes 5490
6.2 49% 56% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 56% 63% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 63% 70% 15 minutes 5580
6.2 70% 77% 15 minutes 5580

On 2024-02-28 19:01, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:

>> Do...
>>
>> ...the...
>>
>> ...math.

Screwed up big time. All of the figures in my calculation were for:

An average of 1% of charge difference (151 joules). And I omitted this
from the computation

Therefore. Given a charge range change of (say) 30% for a drive to and
from work:

the 9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging SHOULD have
been 30X higher:

278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented below.

And again: that's for 30% of charging.

> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
> charger+wire.
>
> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger and wire
>
> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
> wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better than
> ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>
> THAT IS:
>
> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>
> v.
>
> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
> which would have made it worse).
>
> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest range
> of about 20 - 75%.
>
> So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
>
> 151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.

FOR A 1% AVERAGE AMOUNT OF CHARGE... *doh*

>
> or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
>
> Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
>
> 28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
>
> Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by
> various sources.  I'll use 75%:
>
> =37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
>
> =2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
>
> 1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
>
> =9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
>
> Scale as you like.  But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
> emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
>
> Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.
>
> Test data.
> ===============
> 2021-11-30        iPad 12W charger
> iPhone 11 Pro    Wired charge
> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
> 13.9    20%    25%    4.16    minutes    3475
> 13.9    25%    31%    5    minutes    4170
> 13.9    31%    37%    5    minutes    4170
> 13.9    37%    43%    5    minutes    4170
> 12.2    43%    50%    5    minutes    3660
> 11.8    50%    56%    5    minutes    3540
> 12    56%    61%    5    minutes    3600
> 11.8    61%    67%    5    minutes    3540
> 6.5    67%    74%    10    minutes    3900
>                     34225
> ===============
>
> 2021-12-03        iPad 12 W charger
> iPhone 11 Pro         Anker pad         No case (bare metal to charger)
> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
> 6.1    24%    28%    7.75    minutes    2836.5
> 6.1    28%    34%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.1    34%    41%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.1    41%    49%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.2    49%    56%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    56%    63%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    63%    70%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    70%    77%    15    minutes    5580
>
>

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>>> that
>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet does
>>>>> not need.
>>>>
>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>> That
>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>
>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice of
>>> a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the choice of
>>> wired v. wireless charging.
>>>
>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>
>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>>
>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>
>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>
>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural gas,
>>> coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>
>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use (we
>>> export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use more
>>> fossil fuel).
>>>
>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>>> safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>
>>
>> Do...
>>
>> ...the...
>>
>> ...math.
>
> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
> charger+wire.
>
> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger and wire
>
> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
> wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better than
> ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>
> THAT IS:
>
> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>
> v.
>
> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
> which would have made it worse).
>
> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest range
> of about 20 - 75%.
>
> So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
>
> 151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
>
> or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
>
> Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
>
> 28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
>
> Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by
> various sources.  I'll use 75%:

And wrong, because we're comparing two forms of charging that use the
same alternator.

>
> =37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
>
> =2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
>
> 1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
>
> =9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
>
> Scale as you like.  But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
> emissions per year is better than putting it out there.

"Millions of Kg" sounds very scary...

....but it isn't even a rounding error when the totals are actually in...

....billions of tonnes...

....or put another way...

....TRILLIONS of Kg.

On 2024-02-28 14:55, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above
>>>>>> 90%. That
>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>
>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>>>>> safety
>>>>> or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>
>>>> *ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
>>>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
>>>
>>> While you being ill-informed on technical issues
>>
>> *LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you
>> understand nothing.
>
> Nice how you snip things...
>
> It remains and cannot be refuted: wireless charging produces more waste
> heat.  That energy is forever gone.

Actually, any time you're also using the car's heater to warm the car,
when it is then not wasted at all.

Am 28.02.24 um 22:44 schrieb Alan:
> On 2024-02-28 10:45, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>>> That
>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>
>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where safety
>>>> or corrosion is an issue.
>>>
>>> *ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
>>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
>>
>> While you being ill-informed on technical issues (ionizing radiation
>> from cell phones comes to mind, but there are many more), when you
>> wirelessly charge your phone in the car it takes more from your car's
>> battery than wired would; in turn needs to be replaced by your utility.
>> Switzerland at least has some hydro and nuclear (though not enough).
>>
>> If your house (or even car) has additional solar, then you're forgiven.
>>
>
> Dude...
>
> The fastest charging rate for an iPhone is 27 Watts.
>
> That is equivalent to a horsepower of 0.036hp.
>
> The MagSafe maximum charging rate is 15W.
>
> That's 0.02hp.
>
> MagSafe charging is 75% efficent, so he maximum loss you could be
> experiencing is 0.007hp.
>
> Typical horsepower for cruising along the highway is 17-25hp, so let's
> take the average as 21hp.
>
> So...

He does not understand the proportionality of your or my arguments.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>
>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>
>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each time I
>>> got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the car, plugged
>>> in the phone.
>>>
>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>
>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the
>>> phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug
>>> it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>
>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>> that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>> does not need.
>>>
>>
>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>
>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly charged
>> for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>
> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
> hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on uptake).

It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.

It's about PROPORTION.

>
> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years, and so
> on and so forth.
>
> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a car's
> engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the alternator.
> (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise it's far less).
> Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>
> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
> loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".

None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using the
same power source (the car's alternator)

>
> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless side
> heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
> opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local power
> co.)).
>

From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in physics
and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.

On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>
>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>
>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each time I
>>>> got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the car, plugged
>>>> in the phone.
>>>>
>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>
>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
>>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to the
>>>> phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I unplug
>>>> it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>
>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>> that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>>> does not need.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>
>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
>> hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on
>> uptake).
>
> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.

Ad hominem? Are you for real?

>
> It's about PROPORTION.

Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day. A
little bit. nothing much. Everyone tosses out a little plastic on the
way to work and on their way home.

We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
tolerated. Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket if a
cop saw you.

"But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world, it
was hardly anything!"

And you know the judge will uphold the ticket. And rightly so.

This is akin to that. Even though it is not "all that much" in the
great scheme of CO2 output, it is:

A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
(278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).

And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
should have escaped into space.

Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
That removes the social barrier.

Therefore, avoid doing that. Use a wire. Not wireless. As it happens
I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire and
disconnecting it are trivial things to do. Near so-called "muscle
memory" when getting into the car.

>>
>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years, and
>> so on and so forth.
>>
>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
>> it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>
>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
>> loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>
> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using the
> same power source (the car's alternator)

An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from the
propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter. As such you would
consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone. If the EV
were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it would be
relatively efficient.

But if the EV were fossil plant charged, then of course you have to look
at that end of the sequence.

I haven't located a really good explanation of EV charge/discharge
losses (that is: I find implausibly good loss statements (90% in/out) as
well as some pretty dismal ones (60%). Not sure where the 'truth' lies
on that mark).

>
>>
>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless side
>> heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
>> opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local power
>> co.)).
>>
>
> From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in physics
> and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.

The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
physics. Which is not a limit.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-28 20:15, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 14:55, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 15:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.24 um 19:45 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2024-02-28 12:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 28.02.24 um 13:58 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above
>>>>>>> 90%. That
>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>>>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>>>>>> safety
>>>>>> or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> *ROTFLSTC*. Tell that my new electric car. The range is halfed when I
>>>>> put my phones in the wireless charging bay.
>>>>
>>>> While you being ill-informed on technical issues
>>>
>>> *LOL*. Give the bullshit you produce again in this thread you
>>> understand nothing.
>>
>> Nice how you snip things...
>>
>> It remains and cannot be refuted: wireless charging produces more
>> waste heat.  That energy is forever gone.
>
> Actually, any time you're also using the car's heater to warm the car,
> when it is then not wasted at all.

Deflection? That's weak.

Wireless charging = avoidable waste heat - and it's not the heat that
is the issue, but the CO2 emitted to create that heat that is the issue.

Wireless charging waste heat is easy to avoid: use wired charging. No
waste heat = no waste CO2.

ICE waste heat is just a by product of ICE gross chemical to mechanical
conversion inefficiency that happens to be useful to people when it's
cold out. Otherwise it's dumped.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-28 23:37, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

>
> He does not understand the proportionality of your or my arguments.

What you are saying, in essence:

It is bad to throw out little bits of plastic or garbage on the roadside
because, no matter how little you or anyone throws out, it's pollution.
It's visible. Can't do that. Socially. Legally (in most places).

But, if it's CO2, no matter how little, it's OK to throw it into the
atmosphere. It's invisible, so who cares?

Of course that CO2 isn't acting as a "greenhouse"(*) gas for a while -
it persists for centuries before breaking down.
(300 - 1000 years [NASA]).

So any amount avoidable is worth avoiding by simply using a wire rather
than wireless. Your COnvenience doesn't play into it.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>>>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each time
>>>>> I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the car,
>>>>> plugged in the phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
>>>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to
>>>>> the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
>>>>> unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>>> that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>>>> does not need.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to over
>>> hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending on
>>> uptake).
>>
>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>
> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>
>>
>> It's about PROPORTION.
>
> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.  A
> little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic on the
> way to work and on their way home.

Not even remotely the same.

>
> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket if a
> cop saw you.
>
> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world, it
> was hardly anything!"
>
> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>
> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in the
> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>
> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).

Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
completely unrealistic.

>
> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
> that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
> should have escaped into space.
>
> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
> That removes the social barrier.
>
> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it happens
> I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire and
> disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near so-called "muscle
> memory" when getting into the car.

The difference is infinitesimal.

>
>>>
>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years, and
>>> so on and so forth.
>>>
>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
>>> it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>
>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or more
>>> loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>
>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using the
>> same power source (the car's alternator)
>
> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from the
> propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As such you would
> consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.  If the EV
> were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it would be
> relatively efficient.

You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.

The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the same
for both A and B.

So alternator, EV battery or house current.

The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.

<irrelevancy snipped>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless side
>>> heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
>>> opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local
>>> power co.)).
>>>
>>
>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in physics
>> and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>
> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
> physics.  Which is not a limit.

No. They demonstrate your ignorance.

Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
highway driving a year wired vs wireless.

But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went wrong.

On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from personal
>>>>>>>>> experience? Would prefer models that also work with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each time
>>>>>> I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the car,
>>>>>> plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
>>>>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to
>>>>>> the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
>>>>>> unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>>>> that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>>>>> does not need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending
>>>> on uptake).
>>>
>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>
>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>
>>>
>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>
>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.  A
>> little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
>> the way to work and on their way home.
>
> Not even remotely the same.
>
>>
>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket if
>> a cop saw you.
>>
>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world, it
>> was hardly anything!"
>>
>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>
>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in the
>> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>
>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>
> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
> completely unrealistic.
>
>>
>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
>> that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
>> should have escaped into space.
>>
>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
>> That removes the social barrier.
>>
>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire
>> and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near so-called "muscle
>> memory" when getting into the car.
>
> The difference is infinitesimal.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years, and
>>>> so on and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
>>>> it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>
>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
>>>> more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>
>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
>>> the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>
>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
>> the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As such you
>> would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.  If
>> the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it
>> would be relatively efficient.
>
> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>
> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
> car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the same
> for both A and B.
>
> So alternator, EV battery or house current.

House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can produce
- EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.

>
> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
> trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.

Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.

Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
version for 30% charge).

> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless side
>>>> heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched to the
>>>> opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you local
>>>> power co.)).
>>>>
>>>
>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>
>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>
> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.

> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
> highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
It can be done that way for an individual, of course. But I'm
(properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.

You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ! Miles. WTF will
the US get with it?) with the same data I provided. (I avoided this and
just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce those
joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it doesn't matter
what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter the size of the
engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is what the phone
battery is charged with).

It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a billion
people all doing the same bad thing. Like if everyone threw out a bit
of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one person?
Nobody would notice. Not even after a year of it...

>
> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went wrong.

1) I put up the data.
2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using an ICE.
3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical work
lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion of
mechanical work to electricity.

eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has to
burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.

4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates into
emissions directly.

Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
plastic).

And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted. Is it a fraction of total
car CO2 emissions? Sure. But why go in reverse and add CO2 that can be
avoided?

On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with
>>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each
>>>>>>> time I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the
>>>>>>> car, plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to the
>>>>>>> position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs forward to
>>>>>>> the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off far when I
>>>>>>> unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>> Multiply that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions
>>>>>>> the planet does not need.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more depending
>>>>> on uptake).
>>>>
>>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>>
>>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>>
>>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.  A
>>> little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
>>> the way to work and on their way home.
>>
>> Not even remotely the same.
>>
>>>
>>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket
>>> if a cop saw you.
>>>
>>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
>>> it was hardly anything!"
>>>
>>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>>
>>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in the
>>> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>>
>>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>>
>> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
>> completely unrealistic.
>>
>>>
>>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in all
>>> that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth that
>>> should have escaped into space.
>>>
>>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
>>> That removes the social barrier.
>>>
>>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the wire
>>> and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near so-called
>>> "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
>>
>> The difference is infinitesimal.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years,
>>>>> and so on and so forth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise, otherwise
>>>>> it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>>
>>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
>>>>> more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>
>>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
>>>> the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>>
>>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
>>> the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As such you
>>> would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.  If
>>> the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then it
>>> would be relatively efficient.
>>
>> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>>
>> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
>> car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
>> same for both A and B.
>>
>> So alternator, EV battery or house current.
>
> House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can produce
> - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
>
>>
>> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
>> trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
>
> Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
>
> Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
> version for 30% charge).
>
>> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless
>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched
>>>>> to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you
>>>>> local power co.)).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>>
>>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>>
>> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
>
>> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
>> highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
> It can be done that way for an individual, of course.  But I'm
> (properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
>
> You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ!  Miles.  WTF will
> the US get with it?) with the same data I provided.  (I avoided this and
> just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce those
> joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it doesn't matter
> what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter the size of the
> engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is what the phone
> battery is charged with).
>
> It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a billion
> people all doing the same bad thing.  Like if everyone threw out a bit
> of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one person? Nobody
> would notice.  Not even after a year of it...
>
>>
>> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went wrong.
>
>
> 1) I put up the data.

On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with
>>>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang' a
>>>>>>>> bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each
>>>>>>>> time I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the
>>>>>>>> car, plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the car.
>>>>>>>> Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port to
>>>>>>>> the position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs
>>>>>>>> forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off
>>>>>>>> far when I unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>> Multiply that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions
>>>>>>>> the planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
>>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
>>>>>> depending on uptake).
>>>>>
>>>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>>>
>>>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.  A
>>>> little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic on
>>>> the way to work and on their way home.
>>>
>>> Not even remotely the same.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>>>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket
>>>> if a cop saw you.
>>>>
>>>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
>>>> it was hardly anything!"
>>>>
>>>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>>>
>>>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in the
>>>> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>>>
>>>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>>>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>>>
>>> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
>>> completely unrealistic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
>>>> all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth
>>>> that should have escaped into space.
>>>>
>>>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not seen.
>>>> That removes the social barrier.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
>>>> wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near so-called
>>>> "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
>>>
>>> The difference is infinitesimal.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years,
>>>>>> and so on and so forth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>>>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
>>>>>> otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging
>>>>>> "efficiency".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
>>>>>> more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>>
>>>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
>>>>> the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>>>
>>>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
>>>> the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As such you
>>>> would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.
>>>> If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then
>>>> it would be relatively efficient.
>>>
>>> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>>>
>>> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
>>> car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
>>> same for both A and B.
>>>
>>> So alternator, EV battery or house current.
>>
>> House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
>> produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
>>
>>>
>>> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
>>> trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
>>
>> Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
>>
>> Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
>> version for 30% charge).
>>
>>> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless
>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched
>>>>>> to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you
>>>>>> local power co.)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>>>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>>>
>>> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
>>
>>> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
>>> highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
>> It can be done that way for an individual, of course.  But I'm
>> (properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
>>
>> You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ!  Miles.  WTF will
>> the US get with it?) with the same data I provided.  (I avoided this
>> and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce
>> those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it
>> doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter the
>> size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is what
>> the phone battery is charged with).
>>
>> It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a billion
>> people all doing the same bad thing.  Like if everyone threw out a bit
>> of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one person?
>> Nobody would notice.  Not even after a year of it...
>>
>>>
>>> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
>>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> 1) I put up the data.
>
> If so, extremely badly.

On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>>> that
>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet does
>>>>> not need.
>>>>
>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>> That
>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>
>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice of
>>> a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the choice of
>>> wired v. wireless charging.
>>>
>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>
>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>>
>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>
>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>
>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural gas,
>>> coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>
>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use (we
>>> export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use more
>>> fossil fuel).
>>>
>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy and
>>> often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used where
>>> safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>
>>
>> Do...
>>
>> ...the...
>>
>> ...math.
>
> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
> charger+wire.

And what was your testing method?

>
> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger and wire
>
> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
> wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better than
> ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.

How did you measure the energy?

>
> THAT IS:
>
> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>
> v.
>
> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
> which would have made it worse).
>
> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest range
> of about 20 - 75%.
>

And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was responsible for
much of that difference?

Answer those questions...

....and then we'll go on.

> So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
>
> 151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
>
> or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
>
> Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
>
> 28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
>
> Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80% by
> various sources.  I'll use 75%:
>
> =37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
>
> =2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
>
> 1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
>
> =9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
>
> Scale as you like.  But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
> emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
>
> Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.
>
> Test data.
> ===============
> 2021-11-30        iPad 12W charger
> iPhone 11 Pro    Wired charge
> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
> 13.9    20%    25%    4.16    minutes    3475
> 13.9    25%    31%    5    minutes    4170
> 13.9    31%    37%    5    minutes    4170
> 13.9    37%    43%    5    minutes    4170
> 12.2    43%    50%    5    minutes    3660
> 11.8    50%    56%    5    minutes    3540
> 12    56%    61%    5    minutes    3600
> 11.8    61%    67%    5    minutes    3540
> 6.5    67%    74%    10    minutes    3900
>                     34225
> ===============
>
> 2021-12-03        iPad 12 W charger
> iPhone 11 Pro         Anker pad         No case (bare metal to charger)
> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
> 6.1    24%    28%    7.75    minutes    2836.5
> 6.1    28%    34%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.1    34%    41%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.1    41%    49%    15    minutes    5490
> 6.2    49%    56%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    56%    63%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    63%    70%    15    minutes    5580
> 6.2    70%    77%    15    minutes    5580
>
>

On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.  Multiply
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet does
>>>>>> not need.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above 90%.
>>>>> That
>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>
>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice
>>>> of a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the choice
>>>> of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>
>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>>>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>
>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>>>
>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>>>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>
>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>
>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural gas,
>>>> coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>>>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>
>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>>>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>>>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use (we
>>>> export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use more
>>>> fossil fuel).
>>>>
>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy
>>>> and often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used
>>>> where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do...
>>>
>>> ...the...
>>>
>>> ...math.
>>
>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
>> charger+wire.
>
> And what was your testing method?
>
>>
>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger and
>> wire
>>
>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
>> wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better
>> than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>
> How did you measure the energy?
>
>>
>> THAT IS:
>>
>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>
>> v.
>>
>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
>> which would have made it worse).
>>
>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest
>> range of about 20 - 75%.
>>
>
> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was responsible for
> much of that difference?
>
> Answer those questions...
>
> ...and then we'll go on.

Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that. Wireless charging is not a
mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both comply to the same
standard.

Align two coils well and send an alternating current. In both cases I
took pains to align things mechanically as close as possible (better
than 1mm in x and y). An in car charger can only do as well (or
minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe style charger (that
magnetically centres the phone to the charger).

Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the phone.

You're welcome to try a different device and put up your results, of course.

>> So, if one does that 200 times per year (going to work), that comes to:
>>
>> 151 joules * 200 days * 1B people = 30.2E12 joules.
>>
>> or 8.39 GWh lost to heat in wireless charging.
>>
>> Gas engines are (at cruise) about 30% efficient, so now we're at:
>>
>> 28 GWh worth of gasoline ...
>>
>> Until you consider the efficiency of the alternator, put at 70 to 80%
>> by various sources.  I'll use 75%:
>>
>> =37.3 GWh worth of gasoline. @ 12.78 kWh/Kg of gasoline...
>>
>> =2,917,000 Kg of gasoline used (for no good reason);
>>
>> 1 Kg of gasoline reacted with 14.7 Kg of air = 3.18 Kg of CO2 emitted
>>
>> =9,269,000 Kg of CO2 emitted because of wireless charging.
>>
>> Scale as you like.  But it's clear that avoiding millions of Kg of CO2
>> emissions per year is better than putting it out there.
>>
>> Esp. as it lingers for 20 - 50 years or more.
>>
>> Test data.
>> ===============
>> 2021-11-30        iPad 12W charger
>> iPhone 11 Pro    Wired charge
>> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
>> 13.9    20%    25%    4.16    minutes    3475
>> 13.9    25%    31%    5    minutes    4170
>> 13.9    31%    37%    5    minutes    4170
>> 13.9    37%    43%    5    minutes    4170
>> 12.2    43%    50%    5    minutes    3660
>> 11.8    50%    56%    5    minutes    3540
>> 12    56%    61%    5    minutes    3600
>> 11.8    61%    67%    5    minutes    3540
>> 6.5    67%    74%    10    minutes    3900
>>                      34225
>> ===============
>>
>> 2021-12-03        iPad 12 W charger
>> iPhone 11 Pro         Anker pad         No case (bare metal to charger)
>> Power(W)Start    End    Dt    Energy (Ws)
>> 6.1    24%    28%    7.75    minutes    2836.5
>> 6.1    28%    34%    15    minutes    5490
>> 6.1    34%    41%    15    minutes    5490
>> 6.1    41%    49%    15    minutes    5490
>> 6.2    49%    56%    15    minutes    5580
>> 6.2    56%    63%    15    minutes    5580
>> 6.2    63%    70%    15    minutes    5580
>> 6.2    70%    77%    15    minutes    5580
>>
>>
>

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>> Multiply that
>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>>>>>> does not need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above
>>>>>> 90%. That
>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice
>>>>> of a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the
>>>>> choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>>>>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>>>>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural
>>>>> gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>>>>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>>>>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>>>>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use
>>>>> (we export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use
>>>>> more fossil fuel).
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy
>>>>> and often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used
>>>>> where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do...
>>>>
>>>> ...the...
>>>>
>>>> ...math.
>>>
>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
>>> charger+wire.
>>
>> And what was your testing method?
>>
>>>
>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger
>>> and wire
>>>
>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same Anker
>>> wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger (better
>>> than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>
>> How did you measure the energy?
>>
>>>
>>> THAT IS:
>>>
>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>
>>> v.
>>>
>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
>>> which would have made it worse).
>>>
>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest
>>> range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>
>>
>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was responsible
>> for much of that difference?
>>
>> Answer those questions...
>>
>> ...and then we'll go on.
>
> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging is not a
> mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both comply to the same
> standard.

I asked simple questions and you demur.

Got it.

>
> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In both cases I
> took pains to align things mechanically as close as possible (better
> than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger can only do as well (or
> minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe style charger (that
> magnetically centres the phone to the charger).
>
> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the phone.
>
> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your results, of
> course.

You make a claim about efficiency...

....but won't answer questions about how you measured it.

Got it.

On 2024-03-02 11:43, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work with
>>>>>>>>>>>> AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang'
>>>>>>>>> a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).  Each
>>>>>>>>> time I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in the
>>>>>>>>> car, plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the
>>>>>>>>> car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB port
>>>>>>>>> to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it runs
>>>>>>>>> forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't wander off
>>>>>>>>> far when I unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>> Multiply that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of
>>>>>>>>> emissions the planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
>>>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
>>>>>>> depending on uptake).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.
>>>>> A little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic
>>>>> on the way to work and on their way home.
>>>>
>>>> Not even remotely the same.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>>>>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering ticket
>>>>> if a cop saw you.
>>>>>
>>>>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the world,
>>>>> it was hardly anything!"
>>>>>
>>>>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in the
>>>>> great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>>>>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>>>>
>>>> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
>>>> completely unrealistic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
>>>>> all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to earth
>>>>> that should have escaped into space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
>>>>> seen. That removes the social barrier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
>>>>> wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near so-called
>>>>> "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is infinitesimal.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years,
>>>>>>> and so on and so forth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current, a
>>>>>>> car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
>>>>>>> otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging
>>>>>>> "efficiency".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
>>>>>>> more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both using
>>>>>> the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>>>>
>>>>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come from
>>>>> the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As such you
>>>>> would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the cell phone.
>>>>> If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, then
>>>>> it would be relatively efficient.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>>>>
>>>> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in a
>>>> car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is the
>>>> same for both A and B.
>>>>
>>>> So alternator, EV battery or house current.
>>>
>>> House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
>>> produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
>>>> trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
>>>
>>> Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
>>>
>>> Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
>>> version for 30% charge).
>>>
>>>> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless
>>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100% matched
>>>>>>> to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched (ask you
>>>>>>> local power co.)).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>>>>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>>>>
>>>> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
>>>
>>>> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles of
>>>> highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
>>> It can be done that way for an individual, of course.  But I'm
>>> (properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
>>>
>>> You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ!  Miles.  WTF will
>>> the US get with it?) with the same data I provided.  (I avoided this
>>> and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to produce
>>> those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as it
>>> doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no matter
>>> the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and that is
>>> what the phone battery is charged with).
>>>
>>> It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
>>> billion people all doing the same bad thing.  Like if everyone threw
>>> out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one
>>> person? Nobody would notice.  Not even after a year of it...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I put up the data.
>>
>> If so, extremely badly.
>
> I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
>
>
>>
>>> 2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using
>>> an ICE.
>>> 3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical work
>>> lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion of
>>> mechanical work to electricity.
>>>
>>
>> I understand this...
>>
>> ...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
>> DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
>> car's altenator...
>>
>> ...and that just bullshit.
>
> Then you've misunderstood.  I put up a calculation that goes for the
> difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to
> emissions.  Emissions come from gas burning.
>
> The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging the
> phone.
>
>     combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone
>                      30%.                     90%
>
>  1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
> delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
> the phone.
>
> Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
> average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to 75%
> of charge.
>
> Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
> their way to/from work.  So 151 joules X 30%.
>
> The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
> joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
>
> Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
> electric.
>
>>> eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
>>> to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
>>>
>>> 4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates into
>>> emissions directly.
>>
>> No one is arguing it doesn't.
>
> Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
>>> contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
>>> plastic).
>>>
>>> And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted.  Is it a fraction of
>>> total car CO2 emissions?  Sure.  But why go in reverse and add CO2
>>> that can be avoided?
>>
>> It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
>> level of background noise.
>
> In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".

On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 11:43, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I 'gang'
>>>>>>>>>> a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and emissions).
>>>>>>>>>> Each time I got out of the car, brought my phone.  Got back in
>>>>>>>>>> the car, plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the
>>>>>>>>>> car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB
>>>>>>>>>> port to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it
>>>>>>>>>> runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> wander off far when I unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> emissions the planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s to
>>>>>>>> over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
>>>>>>>> depending on uptake).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.
>>>>>> A little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little plastic
>>>>>> on the way to work and on their way home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even remotely the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>>>>>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering
>>>>>> ticket if a cop saw you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the
>>>>>> world, it was hardly anything!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in
>>>>>> the great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>>>>>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
>>>>> completely unrealistic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
>>>>>> all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to
>>>>>> earth that should have escaped into space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
>>>>>> seen. That removes the social barrier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>>>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
>>>>>> wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near
>>>>>> so-called "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is infinitesimal.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by years,
>>>>>>>> and so on and so forth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current,
>>>>>>>> a car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
>>>>>>>> otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless charging
>>>>>>>> "efficiency".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15% or
>>>>>>>> more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging "efficiency".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both
>>>>>>> using the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come
>>>>>> from the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As
>>>>>> such you would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the
>>>>>> cell phone. If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind,
>>>>>> biomass, then it would be relatively efficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in
>>>>> a car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is
>>>>> the same for both A and B.
>>>>>
>>>>> So alternator, EV battery or house current.
>>>>
>>>> House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
>>>> produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you keep
>>>>> trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the equation.
>>>>
>>>> Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
>>>> version for 30% charge).
>>>>
>>>>> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless
>>>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100%
>>>>>>>> matched to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100% matched
>>>>>>>> (ask you local power co.)).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>>>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>>>>>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles
>>>>> of highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
>>>> It can be done that way for an individual, of course.  But I'm
>>>> (properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
>>>>
>>>> You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ!  Miles.  WTF
>>>> will the US get with it?) with the same data I provided.  (I avoided
>>>> this and just converted joules to how much gasoline it takes to
>>>> produce those joules in the car - much smarter way to go about it as
>>>> it doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any car, no
>>>> matter the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a joule - and
>>>> that is what the phone battery is charged with).
>>>>
>>>> It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
>>>> billion people all doing the same bad thing.  Like if everyone threw
>>>> out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from work... one
>>>> person? Nobody would notice.  Not even after a year of it...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) I put up the data.
>>>
>>> If so, extremely badly.
>>
>> I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car using
>>>> an ICE.
>>>> 3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical
>>>> work lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion
>>>> of mechanical work to electricity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand this...
>>>
>>> ...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
>>> DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
>>> car's altenator...
>>>
>>> ...and that just bullshit.
>>
>> Then you've misunderstood.  I put up a calculation that goes for the
>> difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to
>> emissions.  Emissions come from gas burning.
>>
>> The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging
>> the phone.
>>
>>      combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone
>>                       30%.                     90%
>>
>>   1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
>> delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
>> the phone.
>>
>> Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
>> average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to
>> 75% of charge.
>>
>> Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
>> their way to/from work.  So 151 joules X 30%.
>>
>> The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
>> joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
>>
>> Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
>> electric.
>>
>>>> eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
>>>> to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
>>>>
>>>> 4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates
>>>> into emissions directly.
>>>
>>> No one is arguing it doesn't.
>>
>> Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
>>>> contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
>>>> plastic).
>>>>
>>>> And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted.  Is it a fraction of
>>>> total car CO2 emissions?  Sure.  But why go in reverse and add CO2
>>>> that can be avoided?
>>>
>>> It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
>>> level of background noise.
>>
>> In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".
>
> Where there are a huge number of assumptions to get to that
> 278,000,000Kg...

On 2024-03-05 11:02, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-05 06:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-02 16:02, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-28 16:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-28 16:14, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-28 04:58, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 21:48, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28.02.24 00:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>> Multiply that
>>>>>>>> by a billion cars... and that's a lot of emissions the planet
>>>>>>>> does not need.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is total bullshit and out of any proportion. Combustion engines
>>>>>>> have an efficiency of 30 to 40% max. Electric motors are above
>>>>>>> 90%. That
>>>>>>> is where the potential really lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the efficiency of the car cannot be controlled by the choice
>>>>>> of a phone charging cable, it is not in consideration for the
>>>>>> choice of wired v. wireless charging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if charging one's phone in the car you're looking at how much
>>>>>> energy is delivered to the phone.  Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If wired, there is 0 (negligible) loss from the car to the phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If wireless, there is about 20 - 25% loss. (Ever touch a wireless
>>>>>> charger pad?  All that heat is loss).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Multiply by the number of phones in cars.  That is emissions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your EV is charged with emissions producing sources (natural
>>>>>> gas, coal, etc.), then it's actually worse, as charging the EV and
>>>>>> extracting the EV's power from the battery is also a lossy prospect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your EV is charged from renewables (like here: near 100% hydro
>>>>>> power), then it's still better to avoid losses so the utility can
>>>>>> export that power to neighbours and offset their fossil fuel use
>>>>>> (we export power to the US and provinces that would otherwise use
>>>>>> more fossil fuel).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: wireless charging, no matter where or how, wastes energy
>>>>>> and often increases emissions as a result.  Should only be used
>>>>>> where safety or corrosion is an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...math.
>>>>
>>>> Sure - based on my own testing in 2021.  Anker pad v. Apple 12W
>>>> charger+wire.
>>>
>>> And what was your testing method?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> iPhone 11 from 20% to 74% charge: 34225 joules (W-s) using charger
>>>> and wire
>>>>
>>>> iPhone 11 from 24% to 77% charge: 41626 joules (w-s) using same
>>>> Anker wireless charger and phone carefully centred on the charger
>>>> (better than ±1mm in X and Y).  Data below.
>>>
>>> How did you measure the energy?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> THAT IS:
>>>>
>>>> 634 joules per percent of change (average) wired.
>>>>
>>>> v.
>>>>
>>>> 785 joules / percent of change (average) wireless (without a case -
>>>> which would have made it worse).
>>>>
>>>> So it took 23% more energy to charge the battery over the easiest
>>>> range of about 20 - 75%.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how do you know it wasn't the Anker charger that was responsible
>>> for much of that difference?
>>>
>>> Answer those questions...
>>>
>>> ...and then we'll go on.
>>
>> Sorry, you don't get an easy out on that.  Wireless charging is not a
>> mystery - esp. as the Anker charger and iPhone both comply to the same
>> standard.
>
> I asked simple questions and you demur.
>
> Got it.

No, you're just looking to assail it to justify your cause. Wireless
charging is not a mystery. But do go out and buy some other brand and
make the measurements as you like.

>>
>> Align two coils well and send an alternating current.  In both cases I
>> took pains to align things mechanically as close as possible (better
>> than 1mm in x and y).  An in car charger can only do as well (or
>> minusculely better) if it uses a Magsafe style charger (that
>> magnetically centres the phone to the charger).
>>
>> Indeed I helped the wireless case by removing the case from the phone.
>>
>> You're welcome to try a different device and put up your results, of
>> course.
>
> You make a claim about efficiency...
>
> ...but won't answer questions about how you measured it.

I don't recall you asking.

>
> Got it.

You've got nothing. Which is par for you.

Used a Kill-a-Watt widget to measure the AC current before the Apple
adaptor. These adaptors are about 90-95% efficient (so you can discount
that 5-10% if you like since nonesuch is in the car scenario). The
K-a-W is about 1% accurate (either way).

From there: for the wired test: 5 minute interval current amounts were
recorded (see table in other post); for the Wireless, 15 minute
intervals (as it was slower). This was posted in two tables.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-05 11:21, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-05 11:08, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-02 11:43, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-02 14:15, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-02 10:35, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 22:20, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 15:08, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 17:32, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-28 15:52, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 15:39, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 17:31, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2024 10:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-27 10:22, Cameo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you guys recommend a CarPlay wireless adapter from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal experience? Would prefer models that also work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with AndroidAuto.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use a USB cable and reduce your fuel consumption and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I have been using, but find it inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I find climate change inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today I had to run some errands.  Being conscientious I
>>>>>>>>>>> 'gang' a bunch of errands together to save fuel (and
>>>>>>>>>>> emissions). Each time I got out of the car, brought my
>>>>>>>>>>> phone.  Got back in the car, plugged in the phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not very inconvenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that helps: I bought a pretty short cable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> car. Just enough to go from the centre console storage USB
>>>>>>>>>>> port to the position where I have a phone holder (that is it
>>>>>>>>>>> runs forward to the phone). This means the cable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> wander off far when I unplug it.  This makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless charging is 20 - 25% less efficient than wired.
>>>>>>>>>>> Multiply that by a billion cars... and that's a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>> emissions the planet does not need.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you demonstrate the math of the situation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and assume that a billion phones are being wirelessly
>>>>>>>>>> charged for 12 hours a day, every day in cars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter how many hours per day, it will be many 10s
>>>>>>>>> to over hundreds of hours per year per person * 1 B (or more
>>>>>>>>> depending on uptake).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It most certainly DOES matter, doofus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ad hominem?  Are you for real?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's about PROPORTION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed: Let's say people went around littering plastic every day.
>>>>>>> A little bit.  nothing much.  Everyone tosses out a little
>>>>>>> plastic on the way to work and on their way home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even remotely the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We all know, today (or since the 1970's or so), that would not be
>>>>>>> tolerated.  Not only socially, but you would get a littering
>>>>>>> ticket if a cop saw you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But, your honour, in PROPORTION to the plastic waste in the
>>>>>>> world, it was hardly anything!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you know the judge will uphold the ticket.  And rightly so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is akin to that.  Even though it is not "all that much" in
>>>>>>> the great scheme of CO2 output, it is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lot of CO2 no matter how you look at it.
>>>>>>> (278,070,000 Kg of CO2 per year for the case as presented).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a tiny drop in the bucket even though your numbers are
>>>>>> completely unrealistic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And (per NASA) the CO2 will persist for 300 .. 1000 years - so in
>>>>>>> all that time it will be contributing to sending heat back to
>>>>>>> earth that should have escaped into space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course nobody can see CO2 so your extra contribution is not
>>>>>>> seen. That removes the social barrier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, avoid doing that.  Use a wire.  Not wireless.  As it
>>>>>>> happens I had to go to two stores today and the inserting of the
>>>>>>> wire and disconnecting it are trivial things to do.  Near
>>>>>>> so-called "muscle memory" when getting into the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference is infinitesimal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1B tends to make a lot out of a little.  Then multiply by
>>>>>>>>> years, and so on and so forth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then of course there is the source.  Unlike your house current,
>>>>>>>>> a car's engine is grossly inefficient even before driving the
>>>>>>>>> alternator. (thermal efficiency above 30% when at cruise,
>>>>>>>>> otherwise it's far less). Then multiply by the wireless
>>>>>>>>> charging "efficiency".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or (if an EV), the charge discharge cycle is already 10 - 15%
>>>>>>>>> or more loss.  Then multiply by the wireless charging
>>>>>>>>> "efficiency".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of that matters when comparing two things that are both
>>>>>>>> using the same power source (the car's alternator)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An EV doesn't power accessories from an alternator - they come
>>>>>>> from the propulsion battery of the EV via DC:DC converter.  As
>>>>>>> such you would consider the EV's charge/discharge cycle to the
>>>>>>> cell phone. If the EV were renewable charged (hydro, solar, wind,
>>>>>>> biomass, then it would be relatively efficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really don't understand this stuff, dude. It's quite sad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The POINT was an A/B comparison between wired and wireless when in
>>>>>> a car, but it applies to any situation where the power source is
>>>>>> the same for both A and B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So alternator, EV battery or house current.
>>>>>
>>>>> House current is (usually) much more efficient than any car can
>>>>> produce - EVEN - if that power came from coal or other fossil plants.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only difference is the wired vs wireless charging, but you
>>>>>> keep trying to fold the inefficiency of the alternator into the
>>>>>> equation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since (in an ICE) that is where the power comes from, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is how I did the numbers in the other post (see the corrected
>>>>> version for 30% charge).
>>>>>
>>>>>> <irrelevancy snipped>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plug in a wireless charger and put a phone on it.  The wireless
>>>>>>>>> side heats up because: that's what coils do when not 100%
>>>>>>>>> matched to the opposing coil (pro tip: can never be 100%
>>>>>>>>> matched (ask you local power co.)).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From someone who clearly doesn't understand basic concepts in
>>>>>>>> physics and math, I'm not buying your bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The calculations I made demonstrate above basic understanding of
>>>>>>> physics.  Which is not a limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. They demonstrate your ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do the math for charging your phone continuously for 20,000 miles
>>>>>> of highway driving a year wired vs wireless.
>>>>> It can be done that way for an individual, of course.  But I'm
>>>>> (properly) looking at the effect when many people do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can easily compute it for 20,000 miles (Christ!  Miles.  WTF
>>>>> will the US get with it?) with the same data I provided.  (I
>>>>> avoided this and just converted joules to how much gasoline it
>>>>> takes to produce those joules in the car - much smarter way to go
>>>>> about it as it doesn't matter what the car is, for pretty much any
>>>>> car, no matter the size of the engine, a joule is a joule is a
>>>>> joule - and that is what the phone battery is charged with).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about what 1 person does, it's about 100,000,000 to a
>>>>> billion people all doing the same bad thing.  Like if everyone
>>>>> threw out a bit of plastic every day on their way to and from
>>>>> work... one person? Nobody would notice.  Not even after a year of
>>>>> it...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this time, do it step by step and I'll show you where you went
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) I put up the data.
>>>>
>>>> If so, extremely badly.
>>>
>>> I did so, and quite clearly for both wired and wireless cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2) I put up how that translates to energy consumption in a car
>>>>> using an ICE.
>>>>> 3) That of course involves de-rating the car's ICE to mechanical
>>>>> work lack of efficiency, and de-rating the alternator's conversion
>>>>> of mechanical work to electricity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand this...
>>>>
>>>> ...but you've tried to spin it as if it matters when considering the
>>>> DIFFERENCE between to charging methods that both get power from a
>>>> car's altenator...
>>>>
>>>> ...and that just bullshit.
>>>
>>> Then you've misunderstood.  I put up a calculation that goes for the
>>> difference in charging wired or wirelessly and how that translates to
>>> emissions.  Emissions come from gas burning.
>>>
>>> The alternator is just 1 link in the chain from gasoline to charging
>>> the phone.
>>>
>>>      combustion -> mechanical work -> electricity (alternator) -> phone
>>>                       30%.                     90%
>>>
>>>   1 / 0.3 / 0.9 = 3.7 joules of gasoline burning for each joule
>>> delivered to the phone (wired) or to the wireless device that charges
>>> the phone.
>>>
>>> Per my data (listed in the other post), it comes to a difference (on
>>> average) of 151 joules per 1% of charge in the range of about 20 to
>>> 75% of charge.
>>>
>>> Then (arbitrarily) chose 30% as the range of charge one might do on
>>> their way to/from work.  So 151 joules X 30%.
>>>
>>> The difference is that for 30% of battery charge, you need 4530 more
>>> joules (electric) to charge that range (say 40 to 70%).
>>>
>>> Or 16,761 joules of gasoline burning to generate those 4530 joules
>>> electric.
>>>
>>>>> eg: for a car to produce 1 joule of power to charge a phone, it has
>>>>> to burn 3.7 joules of gasoline.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) That translates into gasoline usage directly which translates
>>>>> into emissions directly.
>>>>
>>>> No one is arguing it doesn't.
>>>
>>> Right - then my presentation has no glaring flaws.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiply by whatever number of users you want (the individual
>>>>> contribution is trivial - just like one person throwing out bits of
>>>>> plastic).
>>>>>
>>>>> And it all adds up to a lot of CO2 emitted.  Is it a fraction of
>>>>> total car CO2 emissions?  Sure.  But why go in reverse and add CO2
>>>>> that can be avoided?
>>>>
>>>> It is a negligible difference, dude. It doesn't ever arise to the
>>>> level of background noise.
>>>
>>> In what world is an additional 278,000,000 Kg of CO2 "negligible".
>>
>> Where there are a huge number of assumptions to get to that
>> 278,000,000Kg...
>
> Not really.  What does "huge" mean to you anyway?